A New Turbulence Model for Breaking Wave Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A new numerical model for breaking wave simulations is presented, with a number of improvements compared to previous models. This is a substantial piece of work, with careful model development and the effects of different elements of the revised approach examined and tested. The approach will be useful for future work. The overall structure of the paper is clear and the detailed results presented with appropriate figures and clear discussion. However, there are some elements of repetition and errors in English that need addressing. These are detailed by line number below.
17 allows the choice procedure of the polynomials to be modified in a dynamic way
26 allows the analysis of the effects produced
30 develop near the bottom boundary.
30/31 delete “To take.. coastline,” then “It is necessary..
75 equations of motion [this occurs frequently]
83 varies as a function of
85 properties.. the excessive dissipation of
90 and existing k-l
121 gravitational
130 non-divergence-free [and later]
139 is shown
159 deduced
175 once the value of the .. is known
198 graph Zone 1
201 Zone 2 [delete The]
210 in Zone 3 [again delete the]
212 Zone 5 [again delete The, and later]
223 A new k-l model is
233 coefficients k, e and k1.. 1, e and 0.3. [insert commas, also later in many places]
236 allows us to find
240 possible to differentiate the
242 onwards, and elsewhere, avoid short paragraphs, join these together
246 Configuration A [delete The, and later]
250 the boundary conditions come from
260 Finally, matching Eqs. (19) and (13), we obtain,
262 Eq. (21) is used
275 In Configuration B
280 given by matching Eqs.
282 is also used
287 equation, without the dynamic pressure,
290 with which the velocity
291 field
303 2nd
304 1st order to avoid
306 (ul, e and H) use commas
313 An exact Riemann solver is used.
318 produces shocks
320 allows us to
[also short paragraph]
332 allows us to [and elsewhere]
381 water depth.. cnoidal
387 Section, not Paragraph here and many other times
396 model, given in Section 3.1
393 to 469 this could be substantially shortened, there is a lot of repetition here, try to express the difference more briefly
503 incomplete solution
Section 5.1 and 5.2 – just report the results here, with brief observations about the reasons for the differences, but avoid repeating elements from elsewhere, e.g. much of lines 517-534 and elsewhere in these sections. Don’t explain the development of the model or the reasons for this – this is covered elsewhere.
639 Placing the first
645 (see Figure 13)
661 it can be seen that
681 it can be seen that [and other places]
690 in breaking waves
700 that allows us
708 grid cells that allows us
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adress a tremendous challenge which has been largely studied since fifty years ‘breaking waves in numerical computation’. VOF and SPH methods are cited in the references. Here follows some suggestions and a non exhaustive list of small typos.
Is unclear the vertical resolutions near bottom and near free surface (fig 2). In oceanography it is used sigma_layers vertically.
Could be clarified the mooving of both node-coordinates or only the vertical one, following the free surface.
Neglecting surface tension bears on the free surface smoothest. The paper may adress a remark on the non-smooth aspect of the domain boundary when the wave breaks.
Edition:
line 18 , polynomials of what?
Precise ‘bottom’ is the seabed line 31.
The introduction may be improved, state of the art, how the novelties will be presented. The paper flow could be improved at the level of the 3 novelties presentation.
Initial conditions and BC on the full domain could be aded.
The symbol prime could be detailed, eq 7.
alpha_+ is alpha_-, third line eq 11.
Edit ‘good’ line 257,’ it obtains’ line 260, ‘in zone ‘ line 272, ‘on the wall’, line 278.
Explain may be ‘*’ instead of ‘p’ for predictor line 288.
Check sum line 292.
Edit paragraph 322-326, paragraph 338-344.
’cell face of the same cell’ may be explained, line 346.
Check p=-1 instead of 2, line 350.
Check theta_2, eta_* in t eq 26
Models, l388, paragraph,l389, model, l389
N° is it Nb table 1?
elevations,l482
Is solid particles sediment? Line 514
the paper flow has a rupture when adressing fig 7 and 8 before fig 6.
Edit line 548, ‘reduce further’,l615.
the appelation undertow may be defined.
’to solve’ l645.
’every two’ of what? Line 685.
T is 98.75s which looks very high for a wave traveling 14m.
uses,line 704
Cannata,ref 11
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments and I think the paper is much improved. A few very minor corrections:
561, 626 the captions to Figures 8 and 14 refer to a blue solid line whereas the lines appear black to me.
573 Figure 9 and 10 show (delete "The")
610 From Figures 12 and 13 (delete "The")
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
